Who would have thought of dying humiliated on a cross, to save all of humanity? — Fire Ologist

Zealots suffering from cognitive dissonance after their mentor (and supposed messiah) was executed for high treason.

it’s really, as an extension of Judaism, many thousands of years old. — Fire Ologist

It's an "extension of Judaism" the same way the Latter Day Saints are an extension of Protestantism (which was an "extension" of Catholicism).

Absurd, yet it works - shows me something more at work than the human mind, interests, cultures - this absurdity should have died within years, even if he did rise from the dead. Why the absurdity? — Fire Ologist

Was it really more absurd than other religions of the time in which it became popular? Few taught there was an afterlife (Judaism was ambiguous on this) - that had its appeal. But in general, it's an interesting historical question.

Hence we now have thousands of Christian sects, some mutually hateful towards each other over doctrine and dogma. All interpreting god's will differently. God could settle this in a minute if he intervened. — Tom Storm

We always had, and probably always will have, sects, and gangs and mobs, the participants in identity politics.

I agree - damn all the sectarian. Just because we people, armed with religion and sectarian, tribal, fear and aggressions, have used “Christianity” as a slogan to further perpetrate division and oppression, that just makes the so-called “Christians” like all the rest of us republican conservatives and demo-social-communist progressives. I’m sure someone has put me in a box already. I just separated myself from the box-makers, so I’m just as bad..

None of that looks like Christ to me at all.

You say God could settle this. I agree.

You say if God intervened. I agree. He had to intervene looking at the likes of us.

In the story of Christ, the cross was the intervention. Before the word “Christianity” when a man named Jesus was just showing us who God really is, he hung himself on a cross to die an horrible death. If anyone wanted to leave their sectarian birthplace, God said “Here I am, your servant.” The final intervention.

The rest he left to us, to take what he taught, what he said and lived, and continue to make a sloppy mess like we always do.

That is how much regard God has for me. He still left me free, ready to forgive me, even though I killed him, like we all killed him. For you. For each one. So much does he want me to think I am loved, so much does he want me to live, that he would die on a cross for me. For each one of us, individually.

Because we want to be left alone. Right? Who needs God anyway.

When God intervened with us most directly as human beings, we killed him.

If God intervened more, than what good would my friendship with him be? What good would our friendship with each other be, if we were not free to seek our own minds, our own wills and share our own hearts with each other. God wants us to be us, so he doesn’t intervene; but God wants us to be friends with him and each other, so he shows us what friends do, how friends talk to one another, how to love not matter what the cross.

He didn’t ram religion down anyone’s throats, not even the religious experts of his time who did not recognize him. We are the bad parts of the things we muck up, be it religion, politics, family, friendships. Christ wasn’t sloppy at all if you look hard.

The intervention isn’t over until it’s over, and we get to live both the deprivation and the salvation. Forgiveness is always instantly there, with a banquet to celebrate immediately after.

Was it really more absurd than other religions of the time in which it became popular? Few taught there was an afterlife (Judaism was ambiguous on this) - that had its appeal. But in general, it's an interesting historical question. — Relativist

I see it as with everything authentic about whatever god there is, as the most absurd, leaving nothing left to be said, able to fill us with wonder even if life was eternal.

Three persons, like I am one person, but one God. Totally absurd. Heresy to the Jews like Peter and Paul who knew him first hand. Impossible to fabricate this story. And it surviving without a pen for the most important years.

If God intervened more, than what good would my friendship with him be? What good would our friendship with each other be, if we were not free to seek our own minds, our own wills and share our own hearts with each other. God wants us to be us, so he doesn’t intervene; but God wants us to be friends with him and each other, so he shows us what friends do, how friends talk to one another, how to love not matter what the cross. — Fire Ologist

To me this story doesn't make sense.

You are simply speculating on why god doesn't intervene. You cannot demonstrate this is the reason.

Remember that god not intervening is a more recent thing. He intervenes and appears in person to prophets and figures throughout the Bible. Why no more? (that's rhetorical - there is no proper answer)

Naturally, for me god doesn't intervene because there is no god.

I was speaking more to the illogic of someone claiming that necessarily God cannot exist. — Fire Ologist

To whom do you refer when you capitalize God? It's perfectly logical to say that Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Osiris, Jehovah and Allah cannot possibly exist. Some nebulous supernatural entity somewhere might exist, but we wouldn't have been introduced to it.

I don’t think we could have thought of Jesus as the Messiah prophesized in Judaism. — Fire Ologist

You can't? I wonder why. The late revisionists were able to scrape a couple of coherent verses out of Isaiah's rants to back up their claim - 60-300 years post-crucifixion - that a messiah had been promised to the Jews - who didn't buy it.

Why throw in the sacrament of gathering to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life? — Fire Ologist

There was nothing new in human sacrifice, or eating demigods.

Or why was it God himself becoming a man, living poor and being killed, so that he could rise again? Why is the incarnation leading to poverty and bloody death needed? — Fire Ologist

So he could forgive the imperfect man he created for falling for his tainted fruit con.

Already the religious institution committee would have said “nope - preposterous - it will never stick! Let’s go back to Zeus or Baal, or Odin and work around them.” — Fire Ologist

No, the Pharisees largely considered him just another crackpot, though a few thought he was a prophet (of which Israel had a long tradition - even if they were mostly crackpots). I very much doubt they would have heard of Odin; Zeus would be out of bounds under Roman rule, while Jupiter had never really made a splash in Mesopotamia, and Baal was very much not the Jews' cup of poison. A long while later, Constantine got some serious mileage out of it. Then the Europeans converts ran with it - at considerable cost to common folk the world over.

And the message of action - love, sacrifice for others, forgiveness, the value of life, that God cared so much, held each one of us in such esteem, that he would rather die on a cross to lead us to him than leave us with nowhere to go, but preserving our freedom to live by our own choices, like creatures in the image of God. — Fire Ologist

Yeah, all that. In action. When?

I admit I can’t demonstrate anything I understand from the story of Jesus as some sort of argument. I admit the story is as far-fetched as it is incomprehensible.

I think the story shows God did absolutely everything he could for a humanity that is good and worth his attention. There’s nothing left to say or do. AND as a bonus, we get to go on living as we please no matter what we believe. The question becomes simply, do I want to, of my own heart and mind, want to please God. I see the story is of a God who told us to please each other.

Yeah, all that. In action. When? — Vera Mont

You’re just being grumpy.

I'm very cheerful. I don't have to pretend a cracker is human flesh, or that a magic prince will eventually come back and take a second shot at rescuing us.

So you take the position of God then - leave us to figure out what to do for ourselves. The lonely way is the only way. Should I have crackers or maybe some… ooo cashews! Thank the Lor… oh forget it.

So you take the position of God then - leave us to figure out what to do for ourselves. — Fire Ologist

I think no god was ever there at all. And 8 billion ain't exactly solitude.

Three persons, like I am one person, but one God. Totally absurd. — Fire Ologist

They needed to rationalize Jesus divinity with monotheism. Aristotelian metaphysics helped them do that.

I don't have to pretend a cracker is human flesh, or that a magic prince will eventually come back and take a second shot at rescuing us. — Vera Mont

Pretend? He took his shot. It’s done. We know enough what to make of our own end from here.

And it’s not a cracker. That would be silly. It’s a wafer.

I don't think atheism is illogical, but I do find it to be a "non-prophet/profit" position. On a personal level a theistic me is a stronger & healthier me. My theism is intuitive and derived from the Bible and life events. The Torah is really a book of life, a celebration of life, and the bible is the greatest work of literature ever written. And you don't need Jesus to be a theist.

the illogic of someone claiming that necessarily God cannot exist. — Fire Ologist

I agree. To say anything determinate either way about an indeterminate, or generic, "God" is illogical (i.e. nonsense).

However, no observable evidence entailed by attributes ascribed to any allegedly "revealed" deity that has been actually worshipped during recorded human history has ever been demonstrated, ergo it is reasonable to conclude that such (Bronze-Iron Age tribal) deities do not exist in a factual (i.e. non-fictional) sense as several hundreds of generations of 'devout' worshippers have believed and extant religious cults still dogmatically reify.

Of course I (we) could be wrong. Show me (us) :smirk:

I admit the story is as far-fetched as it is incomprehensible. — Fire Ologist

:up:

On a personal level a theistic me is a stronger & healthier me. — BitconnectCarlos

Which of course doesn't say anything about whether it is true or not. A Sikh colleague says the same thing. There are vegans and techno pagans saying it too.

My theism is intuitive and derived from the Bible and life events. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. My atheism is intuitive and derived from literature and life events.

the bible is the greatest work of literature ever written. — BitconnectCarlos

I prefer The Good Soldier Švejk as literature, although I suspect as religious texts go, the Mahabharata is possibly the greatest one, but personal taste is subjective.

And you don't need Jesus to be a theist. — BitconnectCarlos

True. But this still doesn't address which god is true, if truth is what matters. Or should we do the populist dance of syncretism and say all gods point to the same divine principle?

Show me — 180 Proof

You want a personal invitation.

I’m not capable of showing you God.

I hope you keep looking.

:up:

:point: Pandeism – Pandeus, sive Natura Naturans – is my speculative jam.

A lot of quibbling about "the god of the new testament" versus "the concept of god." This could be recast as a debate about the existence of atoms. By the reasoning in this thread, Democritus' atoms "cannot possibly exist." And yet we know that they do exist. Democritus' description was simply constrained by the limited information available to him at that time, which resulted in a gap between the "sense" and "referent" of the term, to the point which it becomes possible to dispute their identity.

Similarly then, any god of any tradition can be viewed as a "best approximation" to the concept of god. Criticisms of the adequacy of this god or that god are nothing more than an acknowledgement of the particular cultural limitations wherein the idea was formulated. The concept of a citizen used to include the right to own slaves. We don't contend that there were no citizens in ancient Rome or Greece.

Ergo, proving that the Christian God "couldn't exist" is really just pointing out the universal historic fact that concepts are constantly being updated to keep pace with cultural evolution. Tilting at windmills.

Ergo, proving that the Christian God "couldn't exist" is really just pointing out the universal historic fact that concepts are constantly being updated to keep pace with cultural evolution. — Pantagruel

Doesn't need proving or disproving. You either buy a particular insurance package or you don't. I don't buy any of them.

Doesn't need proving or disproving. You either buy a particular insurance package or you don't. I don't buy any of them — Vera Mont

And of course there is the role of faith in everything from epistemology to social reality. These institutional facts don't depend on the pre-existence of god, inasmuch as they are self-instantiating. I do not seek to understand in order to believe, I believe in order to understand. I, for one, very much believe that belief is foundational.

Let's face it, this God is a sloppy worker and doesn't pay attention.

I get that you're an atheist, Tom, but this a concept expressed in paganism/polytheism. So you're kind of a pagan atheist. I've never loved this view though as someone with a disability I don't want to be told "oh God was just not paying attention or drunk or didn't care when he made you" because it leads to a certain portion of the population just being seen as cosmically rejected. I don't believe Gods who are utterly indifferent to humanity are worth being called Gods/God. I am a monotheist, by the way. The Hebrew Bible often retells earlier polytheistic tales, but imho, in a wiser way.

Practicing a religion could gain you divine favor in the afterlife. — Scarecow

You can never be sure of that! :smile:

atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow

This is an argument based on arbitrary and unfounded statement.
But for fun's sake, I would reverse that and say that "atheism is rational and therefore it gains you a favor". That of a sane mind! :smile:
Why atheism is rational is too obvious to be explained.

However, the problem lies elsewhere: You cannot interpret belief in God --and theism, i general-- on a rational basis. Reason and belief in God can satisfy totally different needs. The need for reasoning, evidence, etc. is totally different than that of believing in God. They are not contrary; one does not exclude the other. They can coexist harmoniously.

Thinking is simply a road to truth. If you follow your road, then you will find your truth. If you try to follow somebody else's road, you will find only lies. — Scarecow

Really. What are you talking about?
This is not philosophical thinking. It's a religious and dogmatic talk.

Well, it may sound ridiculous, but who's to say that a god wouldn't punish the theists? — Scarecow

It does sound ridiculous! :smile:

proving that the Christian God "couldn't exist" is really just pointing out the universal historic fact that concepts are constantly being updated to keep pace with cultural evolution — Pantagruel

Proving that the Christian God does not exist, which is to say that either it is internally contradictory or contradictory with a well-established fact, does not amount to imprecise definition, as an aproximation with contradictions is not an aproximation but an impossibility.
Demokritos' atom was a wild guess that happened to be close to later confirmed empirical reality, but Demokritos' atoms do not exist because we know today that the basic constituents of matter are not solid blocks but full of empty space — fermions aside.

an aproximation with contradictions is not an aproximation but an impossibility. — Lionino

Whether or not the approximation has contradictions is irrelevant to the fact that it is the approximation and the thing to which it points conceptually is that. Who is to say at what point the hypothetical begins and where it ends? Science is all approximations.

I do not believe in gods. This is all it takes to be an atheist. — Tom Storm

Exactly!
The word was not coined by atheists, who were perfectly fine going about their business without a load of guilt or fear and without a label. The label was stuck on them by believers as an accusation - or a brand. So they said, what the hay, the shoe fits close enough.

As for gods punishing... Do you suppose they also exchange prisoners?

Whether or not the approximation has contradictions is irrelevant to the fact that it is the approximation and the thing to which it points conceptually is that. — Pantagruel

At that point you can just say that everything is an approximation to something and thus we can't prove anything wrong.

Kepler's system was an approximation of how the solar system really works. Geocentric theory was nonsense.

Science is all approximations. — Pantagruel

Approximation of calculations, not approximation of concepts or fictions.

Approximation of calculations, not approximation of concepts or fictions. — Lionino

Are you equating concepts and fictions?

No. Even if I did, it is tangential to the issue. Your argument relies on the abuse of the word "approximation".

No, my argument is that the specific historic descriptions of "God" are approximations, in exactly the same way that most concepts are, limited by the specific socio-cultural domains in which they are formed. So you can't invalidate the "concept" of God by refuting any of these particular versions any more than you refute the concept of "atom" by refuting Democritus. How is that an abuse of the word approximation? It's a valid analogy. Concepts, especially scientific concepts, are in a state of constant development. Maybe you heard about the JWST crisis in cosmology?

I get that you're an atheist, Tom, but this a concept expressed in paganism/polytheism. So you're kind of a pagan atheist. — BitconnectCarlos

No idea what a pagan atheist might be. I was just expressing an obvious absurdity about the usual claims of monotheism's perfect deity. Conveying 'truth' through an old book, the contents of which few can agree upon, is sloppy work. The botched and imperfect world we live in, full of design flaws and disease also seems to indicate sloppy work. And the fact that a god would design an animal kingdom where predation, torment and suffering are a constant necessity for most species to eat, suggests a love of cruelty or more sloppy work. And there's more... but I have no doubt that believers of any stripe can find a post hoc rationalisation for these things, or a way to deny they are present.